This Day in Legal History: NYC Rent Control
On November 1, 1943, New York City implemented rent control for the first time, under the federal Office of Price Administration (OPA), in response to housing scarcity and skyrocketing rents caused by World War II. As millions flocked to urban centers for war-related jobs, New York’s housing demand surged, outpacing supply and creating a crisis of affordability. To protect tenants from exploitative rent increases, the OPA set strict limits on rent hikes, freezing rates at March 1, 1943 levels. This marked one of the first large-scale interventions by the federal government in the private rental market, signaling an extraordinary step toward tenant protections in the U.S.Â
Rent control in New York City became a hotly debated issue, with proponents arguing it was essential to ensure stable, affordable housing and opponents claiming it would stifle investment in housing maintenance and new development. The 1943 regulations laid the groundwork for the modern rent control policies still seen in New York City today, although the laws have since evolved with the establishment of state and local rent stabilization laws in the 1970s.Â
The legacy of these rent controls remains significant; they continue to influence housing policies across the United States, serving as both a blueprint and a cautionary tale for balancing tenants’ rights with landlords’ financial incentives. Over time, New York’s rent control laws have been adjusted but remain among the most stringent in the country, applying to thousands of apartments even as new buildings and market-rate rentals transform the city. The establishment of rent control in wartime New York thus represents an enduring chapter in housing law, reflecting ongoing tensions between affordability and market freedoms.
Former President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against CBS Broadcasting Inc., accusing the network of election interference by altering an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump claims CBS edited Harris’s responses to questions about the Gaza conflict to improve her image, removing what he describes as a confusing answer and replacing it with a clearer response in a second airing of the interview on 60 Minutes. Trump argues that the alteration violates federal laws prohibiting intentional news distortion, stating that CBS's reasoning—that the edits were made for time constraints—is implausible.Â
The lawsuit, filed in Texas federal court, seeks $10 billion in damages, claiming harm to Trump’s fundraising efforts. Trump also requests that CBS release the full, unedited transcript and remove the modified version of the interview. CBS, denying the claims, asserts that the lawsuit lacks merit and that no part of Harris’s answer was hidden. The legal team representing Trump includes Edward Andrew Paltzik, Daniel Z. Epstein, and Chris D. Parker.
Trump Sues CBS, Says Harris Interview Was Edited To Help Her (1)
Since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, state supreme court elections have become key battlegrounds in the fight over abortion rights. This ruling shifted control over abortion laws to the states, leading to abortion bans in conservative states and constitutional amendments in several others protecting abortion rights. Consequently, state supreme courts, which interpret state constitutions, are seeing increased attention and record campaign spending, especially in states like Michigan, Ohio, Montana, and North Carolina.
In Michigan and Ohio, advocacy groups are supporting pro-abortion rights candidates, aiming to shape court rulings on abortion-related cases. Planned Parenthood Votes and other Democratic groups have invested millions in judicial campaigns in states with seats at stake. Meanwhile, conservative organizations, such as the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative, are financing campaigns for candidates who support abortion restrictions. These efforts reflect the high stakes of ideological control over state courts, with implications for future rulings on abortion.
It’s worth noting here how large the influence of Citizens United and the broader movement to bring more money into politics looms when these kinds of issues are kicked down to states. In some states, judicial candidates are selected through direct elections, making these races highly susceptible to political spending from advocacy groups with vested interests. Other states attempt to limit the injection of politics into judicial decisions by relying on appointments made by governors or legislatures. However, regardless of the selection process, campaign contributions are increasingly flowing into judicial races, raising concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary. With high-dollar donors on both sides of contentious issues like abortion, the rise in judicial campaign spending intensifies the ideological divides within state courts, potentially impacting how justices interpret and apply the law.
Battles over abortion access fuel US state supreme court races | Reuters
A Missouri jury ruled that Abbott and Reckitt's Mead Johnson unit are not liable for a young boy’s severe intestinal disease, a case where the companies were accused of failing to warn about risks associated with formulas for premature infants. This verdict is a win for Abbott and Reckitt following substantial losses in earlier, similar trials, which had resulted in multimillion-dollar awards against them. As a result, Reckitt’s shares rose sharply, with investors seeing reduced risk for future liability costs.Â
The plaintiff, Kaine Whitfield, developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious intestinal disease affecting premature infants, after receiving formula at a hospital. His family’s lawsuit sought over $6 billion, arguing that the companies should have warned of potential risks. However, Abbott and Mead Johnson defended the safety of their products, citing the lack of scientific evidence directly linking formula to NEC and noting that hospitals incorporate widely known benefits of human milk into neonatal care practices.Â
This trial is part of around 1,000 similar lawsuits across the U.S., and medical experts have expressed concern that such litigation could limit formula availability or impact medical decisions. Previous cases resulted in large verdicts against the companies, but recent support from regulatory bodies and scientists could strengthen Abbott and Mead Johnson’s position in ongoing and future cases.
Abbott and Reckitt unit secure win in infant formula trial | Reuters
The rapid growth of the private credit market, now valued at $2 trillion, is creating increased demand for U.S. finance lawyers. Private credit, which involves loans from non-bank lenders, has expanded significantly due to fewer regulatory restrictions than traditional bank lending. This has led major law firms, such as Mayer Brown, Kirkland & Ellis, and Paul Hastings, to hire specialized attorneys to capitalize on the market's rise. For example, Mayer Brown recently appointed Sheel Patel to lead its private credit practice, while Kirkland brought on H.T. Flanagan, whose clients include prominent investment firms like Hayfin and CPPIB.
Traditional banks are also entering the space, often by forming partnerships with investment firms to tap into private credit opportunities. These collaborations, such as Citigroup’s $25 billion private credit program with Apollo, leverage banks’ relationships to generate new transactions. Legal work is further expanding as private credit diversifies into asset-based financing, exemplified by an $850 million financing deal involving music rights.Â
The surge in private credit work has driven law firms to establish dedicated private credit practices, including Gibson Dunn, Akin Gump, and others, with an increase in partner moves seen this year. This trend reflects the high value of private credit for law firms, positioning them for more lucrative deals and consistent legal work in a rapidly evolving finance sector.
Law firms ride private credit wave as market evolves | Reuters
This week’s closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.
This week’s closing theme is Johann Sebastian Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, a thrilling and dramatic piece that perfectly captures the eerie spirit of the Halloween season. Known for its powerful opening chords and haunting, descending melodies, this iconic work by Bach has become synonymous with all things spooky. Originally composed for the organ in the early 1700s, *Toccata and Fugue in D Minor* has an unmistakable dark grandeur that makes it a Halloween favorite across the world.
The piece begins with a bold, almost theatrical flair, setting an ominous tone before weaving into intricate passages that create an atmosphere of suspense and mystery. Bach’s masterful use of the organ’s range and dynamics pulls listeners into a world of gothic beauty and intensity, making this work as timeless as it is chilling. As the Toccata and Fugue builds and resolves, it reminds us why Bach remains one of classical music’s greatest storytellers. Let this piece bring a bit of that Halloween spirit into your weekend!
Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Enjoy!
Share this post